vball you can't defend Carroll on this issue Every year he makes out like he has an IQ of 43 and says he doesn't understand how the BCS works. It's embarrassing.
I disagree. Really? Who wrote the programs? Not at all. Road wins at Ohio St, kal, and ND are worth consideration and the road loss to Washington without Barkley is being judged a bit too harshly IMO. Links to flip flopping comments that came from PC as you claimed. You made the charge, provide the clips or comments, it's not that difficult especially if you are so convinced. He gave his thoughts about the BCS process to boosters at a non media event and no context was provided. Yes, I can defend what he said also given the source just as you would defend CLM if Gilbeaux were to do the same thing. And like Hawker said, I don't see any other coaches loving up to the process or claiming to really understand how it all works.
Like Kirk Ferentz said the other day, "I didn't understand the BCS process when we were 7-5, why would I now understand it at 7-0?" The point is the only coaches that get asked the question are those who are "in it". Because Carroll is usually "in it", he gets asked more often. What I don't really understand is the woodyfest that occurs on here any time Carroll has an opinion on the "world he lives in". .... must be something deeper going on and I ain't no shrink.
Do you honestly think that if Iowa had started around #9-ish, that USC would still be ranked several spots ahead of the Hawkeyes? of course not. Iowa needs teams in front of them to lose before they can move up in the human polls. and only because humans thought they would suck. the program does not include a preseason ranking. only info computer has is wins, losses, and some use a SoS and margin of victory. the computer does not know, nor care where Iowa was ranked in the preseason. and therefore is ranked only on resume' and not preseason opinions. winning on the road at Penn St and at Wisconsin should also be worth consideration as well. Hasn't happened yet, but they will also play Ohio State on the road. not losing at all is kinda big in everybody but USCs eyes apparently.
Uscvball, you guys play @ Oregon and we'll play @ tOSU, then we can talk. If Florida or Bama wins out and Texas wins out, it won't make any difference what we do... at best we will meet in the Rose Bowl playing our second fiddles. Maybe we could play for a bushel of corn versus one of those gay plastic swords. Both are about the same price these days. For Iowa, we haven't even completed the first half of our 8 game conference schedule. Our quarterback can't walk on water and our coach isn't named Saban, so one loss and we're done. The only people who truly pretend to understand how the BCS works are the teams ranked # 1 and # 2.... regardless of how they got there.
Sorry this is my third post in a row... the last two being more tongue-in-cheek, but I do feel the need to defend 'ol rePete a little bit. He not only has the task of defending his team, he has constantly had to fight the media bias against the PAC 10. The fact that an SEC fan may not like the way he does it, is somewhat irrelevant (other than this is an LSU forum and finding obtuse things to talk about is part of the deal). The SEC has four national championships in this new decade 2000-2009 and you have done it with two different teams. There's alot to crow about there. It's created a halo around the conference that lifts every other SEC conference team to some newfound level of greatness (check the preseason rankings each year). The halo even works well when Florida runs through the conference, beating everyone by a combined score of 360-49 (other than Ole Miss doing their blind squirrel finding the acorn thingy) and Bama, conference star number 2, getting completely throttled by Utah. It doesn't matter, Florida's championship proves the conference's greatness and Bama's loss was some kind of fluke. What Pete is referring to is the displaced media attention to a USC win on the road over ND or Cal versus the power points, say, given to Florida beating a very average Tennessee team or Bama beating an over-rated South Carolina team. SEC fans firmly believe that the PAC 10 is USC and 9 other sucky teams (some might even say they all suck). I'm not sure what will ever change that view except the two conferences playing each other more. The fact is (and I know how we all love facts), The PAC 10 is the only conference this new decade that has a winning record against every other conference. Against the other five BCS conferences, they are 75-58 since 2000 coming into this year... and that number has grown again in 2009. The SEC has beaten up on the ACC pretty good, but against the other four BCS conferences, the SEC is 47-54. The SEC has won 9 games in their 20 tries against the PAC 10. LSU has five of those wins (5-0 to be exact). The rest of the SEC is 4-15 against the PAC 10. So when SEC fans don't get Pete's "I don't understand the BCS" bs, there's a part of me that says, "I get it". As I mentioned earlier. the SEC should play the PAC 10 more, even if it's a bowl game match-up for the two conferences.
but but but but, ND was without their #1 WR Micheal Floyd...you know, the same "Barkley was out vs Wash" argument.
